Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670695
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 20:11 schrieb Bill Sloman: > On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 18:53 schrieb Bill Sloman: >> ... >>>>>> You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in >>>>>> the ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza. >>>>> >>>>> You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or >>>>> how much they weigh. >>>>> >>>>>> Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it >>>>>> didn't belong to the WTC complex. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify >>>>>> by their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from >>>>>> the twin-towers to where they were found on the next day. >>>>> >>>>> And what shape was that? >>>> >>>> The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted >>>> to their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted >>>> together and later welded. >>>> >>>> The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number >>>> of vertical and horizontal steel beams. >>>> >>>> If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that >>>> they came from one of the twin towers. >>>> >>>> From where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections >>>> were build mainly equally. If there were any differences at all >>>> would be a good question. But at least I don't know about any >>>> differences. >>>> >>>> Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter >>>> walls of one of the towers. >>>> >>>> The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't >>>> know the exact weight). >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't >>>>>> fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on >>>>>> that picture. >>>>> >>>>> But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want >>>>> them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion >>>>> doesn't hack it. >>>> >>>> >>>> I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because >>>> these sections were mainly equal. >>>> >>>> Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow >>>> to identify the individual piece. >>>> >>>>>> It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and >>>>>> remained there, while the much more logical place to fall upon >>>>>> (WTC- Plaza) wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently >>>>>> belonged to the harbor of New York. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through >>>>>> the walls of adjacent buildings. >>>>> >>>>> They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as >>>>> they fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey >>>>> failed and dumped each floor onto the floor below >>>> >>>> Sure, something like that... >>>> >>>> BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity >>>> of up to 350 km/h damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza???? >>> >>> Probably because there weren't any twenty ton massive pieces of steel >>> falling freely from the top of world Trade Centre. >> >> You would certainly agree, that the twintowers actually collapsed. >> >> So: 'what was up had to come down' (in one way or the other), because >> steel-beams are not supposed to stay floating in the sky. >> >> We could discuss the size of the pieces, but not the total mass and >> the hight, from where these pieces had to come down. >> >> Each tower was made from roughly 600,000 to of material. >> >> So, it we had, say, ten-thousand pieces, each piece would have a mass >> of 60 tonns. >> >> That's a little large, so lets assume 30,000 pieces of debris (per >> tower). >> >> That would give us an average of 20 to per piece. >> >> But by looking at the pile of the rubble, there haven't been 30,000 >> pieces of an average of 20 to in each of the piles. >> >> I would say, there were less the ten-thousand pieces of such a mass, >> possibly far less (in both piles combined!). >> >> But, if you prefer that, we could also assume 40,000 pieces with an >> average mass of 15 to or 60,000 pieces weighing on average 10 tonns each. >> >> What would you prefer? >> >>>> That was a VERY unusual habit!!! >>> >>> Nobody makes a habit of dropping twenty ton pieces of steel from the >>> tops of very tall buildings. It is anti-social and discouraged. >> >> You are absolute right and nobody would drop such piece intentionally >> from such a height. >> >> But we're not talking about intentions, but about the collase of a >> skyscraper. This did happen and therefore we need to assume, that the >> pieces fell down some way. >> >> >>>> Instead of piercing through the floor, these sections pierced >>>> through the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intact >>>> outside of the WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that >>>> WTC-area. >>> >>> The columns didn't drop vertically - they swayed out of the vertical >>> and eventually swayed far enough to fall over, but the sway meant >>> that they didn't fall freely or vertically. >> >> Sure, but the pieces 'falling' sideways had enough kinetic energy to >> pierce through the steel structures of adjacent buildings. > > The top of the column moved further sideways that the bits closer to the > ground. I'd imagine that the columns lost the their lateral support from > the top down - as each floor fell down onto the one below it, the tops > vertical columns would splay out a bit further until the residual > stiffness wasn't enough to constrain the lateral motion and they'd go > from being bent to being u-shaped with what had the top now hitting the > ground. >> >> So: why didn't they cut through the floor level of the WTC-Plaza??? > > Because they went sideways before they went down. Look at this picture and ask yourself: what is depicted on this photo? https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291527_AP01091002603.jpg You see a fireman and a police car, which is standing on the street near the ruins of one of the WTC-buildings. The police car is hardly damaged and there was almost no debris and you can clearly see the street level. This means: the remains of that destroyed building didn't fall outside of the buildings own footprint. This fact alone is extremely strange, because this would mean, that the building had mainly vanished without a trace. This is another picture with strange content: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291530_AP01091105609.jpg It shows rows of parking cars, with remains of the perimeter walls of the twintowers inbetween the cars. But the cars had still windows, which were covered with dust, but were not broken. Now: such a huge steel beam could break the windscreen of any car with ease, even if it didn't drop from more than a meter. So, why didn't the windows break? Or his page: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58512318 There you can see a picture, which shows car inside the rubble of one of the towers. These cars looked quite undamaged, if you take into account, that just recently the remains of the largest building in the world fell upon them. Or that issue: lots and lots of unburned paper in the streets, while none of the filing cabinets remained: https://www.bu.edu/files/2021/09/resize-3905155592_0d38904c5e_o.jpg How did that happen? I mean, if you melt the cabinets, the paper should be burnt (at least a little). TH ...
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 11:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 02:54 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:31 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 22:21 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 09:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 22:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:11 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 09:02 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 08:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 09:56 +0200
Re: energy and mass Daren Remond <ndno@dmrndd.us> - 2026-03-29 13:04 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:33 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 01:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 07:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:48 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 18:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:17 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:13 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:46 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 13:57 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 08:59 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 15:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 09:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 03:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 10:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 10:19 +0200
Re: energy and mass Cloro Sandiford <iofnd@dosc.us> - 2026-03-29 13:01 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:31 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 02:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:39 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 23:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:47 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 18:23 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:12 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 23:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 09:57 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-06 02:53 +1000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 13:09 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:11 +1000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-08 09:13 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-08 22:56 +1000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:31 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 03:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 09:38 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 04:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 23:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 21:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 10:14 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 20:58 +1000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 12:51 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:27 +1000
csiph-web